Upon receiving an article for review, a journal was alerted by a referee to a potential case of duplicate publication. It was discovered that the submitted article mirrored content from a surgical journal article published eight years prior, which presented data on haemodynamics and intestinal blood flow in pigs.
The submitted article replicated the same results as the previous publication, covering only the first three time points included in the original study. While the data remained identical, the graphical presentation differed, and the language used was distinct. Notably, the submitted article listed three new authors in addition to those from the original publication.
Despite claims from the authors that the second article included new, minor elements in the discussion, the editor deemed it a clear case of double publication. Consequently, the editor rejected the paper and advised the authors of the unacceptable nature of their actions. It was suggested that the matter be escalated by contacting the authors' institution, urging the Dean to investigate the issue and reminding the authors of the criteria for authorship.
The editor proceeded to inform the Dean of the authors' institution about the concerns and requested an investigation. In response, the Dean acknowledged the seriousness of the matter and committed to follow-up actions.
Following these developments, the journal received a letter from one of the authors of the original publication expressing fury towards her colleagues for attempting the double publication without her knowledge. With the case now addressed from the journal's perspective, it is considered closed.